tonyh29 Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I was about to say what Chindie said You make it sound as if Cameron is selling uzi's from the trunk of his car down a back street Reality is we've supplied all the top Despot nations for years and a £3bn deal for BAE sure wouldn't go amiss right about now You can't seriously be trying to score political points on this one !! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I was about to say what Chindie said You make it sound as if Cameron is selling uzi's from the trunk of his car down a back street Reality is we've supplied all the top Despot nations for years and a £3bn deal for BAE sure wouldn't go amiss right about now You can't seriously be trying to score political points on this one !! Perhaps Cameron would be better off chasing the corporations for their tax money rather than letting it slide? That would probably get the country a bit more than £3bn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Perhaps Cameron would be better off chasing the corporations for their tax money rather than letting it slide? That would probably get the country a bit more than £3bn At the risk of being accused of ahh but Labour , have these large corporations suddenly sprung up since 2010 , or merely just avoided paying tax since 2010 No , so it's a stupid arguement really... the tax avoidance figures being mooted for a lot of these companies is "European " not just "uk" (possibly even "worldwide" in some cases However the G20 nations are/ will be meeting and discussing trying to get these corporations to start paying fair taxes .. I suspect they may well fail but no doubt you will try and pin that on the Tories as well ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Yeah, but what about when Prescott punched that guy who threw an egg at him ... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Sorry. Hadn't seen it posted for a page and was getting withdrawal symptoms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Yeah, but what about when Prescott punched that guy who threw an egg at him ... Nice one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 At the risk of being accused of ahh but Labour , have these large corporations suddenly sprung up since 2010 , or merely just avoided paying tax since 2010 No , so it's a stupid arguement really... the tax avoidance figures being mooted for a lot of these companies is "European " not just "uk" (possibly even "worldwide" in some cases However the G20 nations are/ will be meeting and discussing trying to get these corporations to start paying fair taxes .. I suspect they may well fail but no doubt you will try and pin that on the Tories as well ? If it's not the "Well John Prescott punched someone!" defence it's "Well Labour did this / didn't do that as well!" defence. They really don't justify these weak Tories not taking any action against this kind of thing do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 So much for a new dawn in the politics threads hey Jon / Ajax ( see Europe thread) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 So much for a new dawn in the politics threads hey Jon / Ajax ( see Europe thread) Come on Tony there is still room for a little humour which is how I read it in Jons case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 At the risk of being accused of ahh but Labour , have these large corporations suddenly sprung up since 2010 , or merely just avoided paying tax since 2010 No , so it's a stupid arguement really... the tax avoidance figures being mooted for a lot of these companies is "European " not just "uk" (possibly even "worldwide" in some cases However the G20 nations are/ will be meeting and discussing trying to get these corporations to start paying fair taxes .. I suspect they may well fail but no doubt you will try and pin that on the Tories as well ? I think what's happened since 2010 (not driven by a change of government in the UK; that was incidental) is that there's been a steady increase in the amount of attention given to taxdodging, helped by the excellent work of people like Nicholas Shaxon and Richard Murphy. The time was right in the sense that the scale of the financial crisis, the cuts being made, and the impact on most people, made the media more receptive to giving coverage to the way that the rich have ripped off others, and therefore made people more aware of the scale of the theft. In previous years, the work of Murphy and Shaxon and others would have attracted less notice. This has led to a gradual shift in the public perception of taxdodging, so that it is starting to become seen as more questionable than it was. It's a slow process. Lately, even the accountants, the main facilitators of taxdodging, are starting to develop some understanding that it creates some degree of public hostility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Come on Tony there is still room for a little humour which is how I read it in Jons case. yeah Jon's post in isolation is fine and nothing wrong with a bit of humour but usually it's the "humour "posts where the escalation starts ... when you have 3 posts in a row having a "pop" at you , you could see how it could rile a poster into tit for tat and then away we go ...posters could have simple "liked" Jon's post , as I was going to do , and onwards we go .. Peter has given the Corporate tax question a fair and decent reply .. not sure Ajax's post warrants the same praise , do you ? PS The latest Prescott thing was in relation to Plebgate and I asked a question , what is worse allegedly swearing at someone or physically punching them .. needless to say those on the VT "left" all decided that swearing was the more serious crime , I found that (and still do) somewhat surprising .... but that is old news now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I think what's happened since 2010 (not driven by a change of government in the UK; that was incidental) is that there's been a steady increase in the amount of attention given to taxdodging, helped by the excellent work of people like Nicholas Shaxon and Richard Murphy. The time was right in the sense that the scale of the financial crisis, the cuts being made, and the impact on most people, made the media more receptive to giving coverage to the way that the rich have ripped off others, and therefore made people more aware of the scale of the theft. In previous years, the work of Murphy and Shaxon and others would have attracted less notice. This has led to a gradual shift in the public perception of taxdodging, so that it is starting to become seen as more questionable than it was. It's a slow process. Lately, even the accountants, the main facilitators of taxdodging, are starting to develop some understanding that it creates some degree of public hostility. A lot of what people are accusing the multinationals of stems from ignorance and lack of understanding though, rather than any real avoidance by some of the companies in the press. And please don't keep mentioning Richard Murphy, he makes me cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 ...allegedly swearing at someone... Mitchell said in his resignation letter: The offending comment and the reason for my apology to the police was my parting remark "I thought you guys were supposed to f***ing help us". Doesn't seem much 'allegedly' about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 A lot of what people are accusing the multinationals of stems from ignorance and lack of understanding though, rather than any real avoidance by some of the companies in the press. And please don't keep mentioning Richard Murphy, he makes me cross. So to take a specific example, if a multinational decides that its UK subsidiary should purchase supplies from its counterpart in another country at a price higher than the open market price, and if it pays royalties to head office in a low tax jurisdiction, and these actions result in it paying virtually zero tax in the UK while it tells shareholders that its UK operations are profitable, would you see criticism of that as ignorance and misunderstanding, or fair and reasonable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Mitchell said in his resignation letter: Doesn't seem much 'allegedly' about it. he resigned around a month after the incident did he not ? at the time there seem to be some discrepancies as to what was / wasn't said .. Mitchell ,to my knowledge still denies using the word Pleb for example , which seems to have been the biggest stick that he was beaten with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 he resigned around a month after the incident did he not ? at the time there seem to be some discrepancies as to what was / wasn't said .. Mitchell ,to my knowledge still denies using the word Pleb for example , which seems to have been the biggest stick that he was beaten with There still seem to be discrepancies as Mitchell hasn't ever said fully what he thought/knew he said (I think I go with Nick Robinson's idea that he was probably in such a fury that he can't recall it himself) but just an assurance that he didn't say some of the things he was accused of saying. It wasn't for the alleged use of the word 'pleb' that he was really criticized but for the attitude to others that its use would have suggested and, thereafter, for the dismissive way he dealt with the situation. The 'swearing' thing got mixed up with that partly because people wanted to bring the Boris comments (on swearing at the police in general) in to play and it all became a mirky mess from then on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 7, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 7, 2012 There still seem to be discrepancies as Mitchell hasn't ever said fully what he thought/knew he said (I think I go with Nick Robinson's idea that he was probably in such a fury that he can't recall it himself) but just an assurance that he didn't say some of the things he was accused of saying. It wasn't for the alleged use of the word 'pleb' that he was really criticized but for the attitude to others that its use would have suggested and, thereafter, for the dismissive way he dealt with the situation. The 'swearing' thing got mixed up with that partly because people wanted to bring the Boris comments (on swearing at the police in general) in to play and it all became a mirky mess from then on. This is my take, too. Someone takes a swing at a bloke who's chucked eggs at him, well it shows a lack of restraint, but it's an entirely understandable human reaction. But when they come out with that "Don't you know who I AM? Respect your betters" bullshit, it reveals something far, far nastier, IMO. That said, the Mitchell thing was never proved either way, and there was clearly an agenda by the police, so I think it did get overpublicised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 PS The latest Prescott thing was in relation to Plebgate and I asked a question , what is worse allegedly swearing at someone or physically punching them .. needless to say those on the VT "left" all decided that swearing was the more serious crime , I found that (and still do) somewhat surprising .... but that is old news now Your raking over old ground but I'll bite. You make it sound as though Prescott just attacked someone physically for no reason. When the fact is he had an egg thrown at him from a couple of feet. As said previously his reaction was self defence and a natural one and a reaction many of us would certainly have in the same situation. Mitchells verbal attack on a Police Officer was unprovoked on someone there to protect him and his colleagues and one that the vast majority of us thankfully wouldn't align ourselves with or find a natural reaction given the circumstances around his verbal assault. Mitchells was far worse than some guy defending himself from an unprovoked physical attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 So to take a specific example, if a multinational decides that its UK subsidiary should purchase supplies from its counterpart in another country at a price higher than the open market price, and if it pays royalties to head office in a low tax jurisdiction, and these actions result in it paying virtually zero tax in the UK while it tells shareholders that its UK operations are profitable, would you see criticism of that as ignorance and misunderstanding, or fair and reasonable? Like Starbucks for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 That would be an example, but transfer pricing is pretty widely used as a device to report a smaller profit and therefore smaller tax liability than actually exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts